|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|03-14-16 04:20 PM|
Originally Posted by ArkInRev View Post
bunch of slaaneshi tau-crons.
that is why slaanesh has 'disappeared' lately i'd guess,
cuz g-dub bosses are paranoid, need to hide their excesses,
so moar skulls n free rhinos for everyone in the bar, beetchis!
|03-14-16 04:15 PM|
Originally Posted by Xabre View Post
|03-14-16 03:53 PM|
In response, excessive backstory was added upon which a decision was made as to who the winner was. Still, based solely on the scenario presented, there was no answer, nor was there evidence of human interaction offered where humans "beating" other humans was determined by the backstory for their interaction. Finding evidence upon which to extrapolate is going to be difficult, because of the position I am taking: Humans don't value reasons for determining winners in hobby.
Put any three artists in a lineup and declare one of them the "winner" to have beaten the other two and watch the carnage. The one armed vet may have beaten the soulless corporate shill at the hobby by your estimation, but while the vet's story tugs at my heart, I don't agree that he did.
The funny thing here is how binary the treatment of the discussion is when we're trying to discuss how a machine may or may not "beat a real human." That despite our complex state of being, we've reduced our complex thought to the base level of the machine.
It's not 0 or 1, it's not binary, it's not duality, it's not fun or not fun, etc.
Even in the example, there is a binary answer. Inventing a backstory may have engaged the rest of the complex brain, but by the end, the answer was still player 1 or player 2.
So again, why do I care about "winning" so much? Because when it comes to the experience of 40k, I don't see evidence of people placing value on motivation or morality. That's either because it is assumed, which would be quite a presumption, or that it just isn't there. Value is demonstrably placed on quantifiable and qualifiable aspects.
In the end, no one beats anyone at 40k or any other hobby. Everyone collectively wins by engaging with others, or by allowing the idea to exist within which everyone can participate, or by whatever draws a positive response for their position. In fact, we all win by having a robot that is skilled enough to play against us. The stakes of losing collectively at a hobby, is that it will just vanish into history.
|03-14-16 03:12 PM|
There are a few points upon which the premise rests that I believe are fallacies.
Morality is Duality
While the nature of treating morality on a series of scales bundles up the idea into digestible segments, I don't believe that real concepts are two sides of a coin. At worst, I still believe that the edge of the coin is a side. The side that is neither good nor evil, happy nor sad, pleased nor annoyed. It's the side that can't be bothered to be involved in being a side. It's the side often forgotten. Apathy.
Apathy isn't a moral decision, though it has moral implication. My position is such that merely existing is sufficient to interact.
Unless an author is a time traveler from the last moment of the universe's existence, or a mystic with laser accurate precognition, there really isn't a strong enough position to use words like "never." I'm not talking about absurd statements like "Chairs will never enslave the human race", I'm really talking about quantifiable and qualifiable ideas like this one. "Never" is the kind of word that tidies things up for the frightened or insecure. "Zombies will never break through this barrier." That's a fine sentiment, and it probably provides some solace, until zombies break through the barrier and eat your face.
More on not agreeing below:
Still, there can be a comparison drawn to why I actually do play games, that has nothing to do with overcoming self. When I engage in play at any level, it's a selfish want of pleasure. When my opponents are having a good time, I'm drawing pleasure from that. Playing games is a way to exchange pleasures without necessarily reaching under the table. It's primitive to reduce the nature of pleasure to one that is solely sexual.
"'It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."
People have latched on to this phrase, and notice the "how" and not the "why". Why just isn't valued in beating, winning, losing, etc. Sure, the AI has to overcome the semantic hurdle that it may not actually be playing, but I don't think we're really looking at semantics here. If we were, the definition of robot would be called to the stand.
Like it or not, the signal exchanges in your brain and the makeup of your physical form are all the result of a program. Your environment has set some of the variables, but at the core, your biology is just as much of a machine as my laptop is. Challenging the robot's origin of self is absurd when we can't even define our own.
In any case, and for clarity, not to be pedantic, the're is an easy opportunity to be misunderstood with the "=" sign, as thus far we have not established what that operation really means. "Equal" The two are the same. "Equivalent" They are close enough for government work. My biggest issue with the "=" usage, is the implied absolute. I've already mentioned how I feel about duality, but as a general rule, when language uses more than one word to describe roughly the same idea, there's likely to be some difference in their definition. "Chest = container" is an unfair equivalency, because in some cases it may be a type of container, and in others we might just be talking about breasts.
From the beginning, and in the end, your definition of "beat" carried the baggage of morality. Neither my definition nor my philosophy are so burdened.
|03-14-16 01:48 PM|
Why robots SHOULD win at 40k.
|03-14-16 02:26 AM|
Originally Posted by ArkInRev View Post
obviously, i think that you are wrong.
by the way, if you could anwser my three questions and explain well why your answers are correct, then i would give you bonus points in another role...
everything is moral.
even what we do with our leisure time.
that doesn't mean that others get to judge and determine who we think about when we polish the sword, so to speak, but it does mean that everything that we do with ourselves and common resources in our lives has consequences that affect other people. there are two ways to go. one, go libertarian ... but libertarians can't handle the complexity of a real social coordination problem, so they typically turn all game/decision theory and say 'no, everything is not moral' but then they spend 40 years increasingly turning left until now the entire position in social political philosophy is a farce. right libertarians are either stuck with a position they would rather not have or are zio-fascists and banksters. after all, who can be more libertarian than milton friedman, who told us that in so far as we are leaders (in business, which is, well, what most people do with most of their lives most of the time) our only duty is to maximize profits for shareholders, which is basically corporate governance through non-governmental mechanisms, though with collusion of government officials and coordination with government mechanisms, i.e. fascism. and this is what we see in the usa today. latter day libertarian corporate capitalism tells us everything is great so long as we don't interfere with anyone else. this is great if people are educated and trained to be wise and tolerant, but the culture is opposite to this in the usa. so, what people end up doing is complaining about what everyone else is doing, e.g. the PC bs ruining critical discourse at universities. and at the same time, corporations and especially financial corporations which have been built over the past four or five generations of fascistic collusion between wealthy people and public officers has resulted in the enrichment and empowerment of both of these two classes of people at the expense of most everyone else. this is one way to go with the question on the limits of morality. the other way to go is to just be honest, or honestly be just, and this starts with the opposite of what people call micro aggressions. instead of focusing on minimizing micro aggressions, wasting resources punishing microaggressors, people should be maximizing micro i don't know what to call it but maybe micro-graciousness ... but people are poor in constructive ideas like these, because they have been lied to their whole lives and continue to believe the lies, especially the big ones, rather than sit down and figure things out for themselves...
i know, some people turn off when people say stuff like this and that is fine, but seriously.
don't believe me?
go to merriam webster dot com, and look up the word 'aggression' as i had just done.
i was looking for an antonym for aggression.
look at the example sentence for the word, aggression, in that dictionary?
of all the possible examples, this very popular and influential website uses this example.
now, what is the problem?
well, it is not what really happened.
actually, it was us aggression which caused the attack on pearl harbor.
people in the us gov had been systematically trying to get japan to attack the usa,
so that those same us gov people could convince all of the poor farmers and kids from california to get into boats and fling themselves at machine gun nests...
then, these same people lied about what happened,
there buddies published the new history books to suit,
and their other buddies and people educated with those same books run merriam webster dot come.
question #1) is domination = winning?
player one, maybe he is a vet with one arm and ptsd.
maybe he has a hard time sleeping.
maybe he has no money, because the government won't pay his health care.
maybe it is not him, maybe it is his kid.
maybe his kid wakes up everyday feeling that the weight of the world is on his shoulders.
he can't justify the time and money that he spends on 40k stuff,
but his dad is a vet and he is proud of that,
though he is ashamed of his dad, cuz his dad is broken, and broke.
so the kid likes to hang out, grows up with shaky hands because his house, well,
had no paint and brushes worth anything because his dad had no money and couldn't paint models with one hand,
and is convinced he has bad luck.
player two is some mcmansion dweller.
he lives off his mom's credit card.
he gets to spend his time dreaming up game-breaking netlists and playing with his airbrush
in between sora aoi movies and changing his silk underpants.
player one does more work
what comes under the heading of "cognitive burden" in the literature,
than player two
simply getting to the 40k table than player two will do in a typical month
of lattes and sales meetings.
player one wins.
everything is moral.
maybe the guys at your tourney do that too?
it is about "overcoming" one's self.
congratulations for doing what all living things do.
not a necron yet, maybe.
|03-14-16 02:12 AM|
Originally Posted by Fallen View Post
trying to beat an AI computer game,
or go or chess for that matter which are basically human beings trying to make computer games before they had computers, so that the games are themselves - we can say - originally intended to be coded, in the end,
is like challenging a fish to a swimming race.
but this goes both ways.
that is the essence of the original post, really.
and "competitive" 40k is for wanna be necrons.
|03-13-16 08:19 PM|
|Fallen||I'm certain that if one were to write 40k via code, that the computer would with out a doubt be able to beat a player, and over time with enough testing/patches to beat some of the high end "professional" players of 40k.|
|03-13-16 04:20 PM|
Originally Posted by Rush Darling View Post
Considering enjoyment as being part of the "win" is a subjective and emotional evaluation of a game. It's like Charlie Sheen saying he's "winning." I think there would be many people that would disagree with his subjective valuation that is placed on "winning."
So, dropping AI from the equation for the moment to establish what "winning" is:
One player is a terrible painter, loses every game, makes friends, but then falls undeniably in love with the game and cherishes every moment.
Player 2 is a painting demigod, tactically crushes his opponents like the second coming of Julius Caesar, shows up to games and doesn't interact socially, but does not engage in any emotional aspect of the game. He's a professional or just plays to kill time.
Who beat who?
In my view: Player 2 wins, player 1 gets the "that's the spirit participation ribbon." That's not to diminish or mock player 1, he "gets" the hobby. But player 2 subjectively beats player 1 at painting, and objectively beats them at tactics.
In tournaments, I don't really see a "Who had the most fun? at 40k" category, and even those with sportsmanship categories don't trump the weighting of the technical painting or practical winning categories. As evidenced by any painting or gaming tournament placing no objective value on enjoyment leads me to believe that other players also don't believe that the level of enjoyment is a fundamental component of winning.
So, if AI wins the game, and a machine out paints me he wins. I'm not bothered that I have the consolation prize of "being" despite my inability to overcome that opponent. My esteem isn't bruised by a loss to a machine any more than it is by losing to a human.
I've won games and felt bad about my opponent not having fun. I feel a loss, but I also know that I beat that other person.
When I've lost to AI, either in board games or video games, I know and feel that I have been beaten. I've never dismissed the AI as not really "playing" because it just did as it was programmed. I lost, I had frustrating fun, and I'm OK with my enjoyment of the game. If my opponent feels nothing, that has no impact on my win or loss.
Sure, the AI doesn't have endorphins released to give it pleasure, but I don't think that the chemical "win" in my brain turns my loss into a victory. If an AI is "rewarded" by getting the 1 it's looking for instead of the 0, I don't really see that as a requirement to win. People participate in the hobby for different reasons, and I wouldn't diminish their motivations any more than I would diminish my computer's motivation to get that "1."
|03-13-16 12:53 PM|
Originally Posted by Rush Darling View Post
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|